Imagine if you had the power to adjust the income tax rates and only the income tax. You could not add or remove tax brackets you cannot change the ranges of income these taxes are over. You could not chance other taxes. You can also control federal spending. What would you set the brackets to?

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

This would be contingent upon other tax changes and is not something that I'd actually like to see if the other changes are not made.

It looks like taxes would only increase if you are earning at least $1,000,000. The rest of your plan would consist of deep tax cuts. How would your tax rates look like if you couldn't reform other taxes?

We have a 1 trillion deficit so we can't be too liberal with tax cuts. I also think a 60% tax rate on the super rich will just drive them away from this country.

For example Austria and Belgium only have top tax rates of 50%, France, UK and Germany 45%.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.15%->13%25%-> 20%28%-> 32%33%-> 40%35%-> 45%39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be opposed to a modest sales tax either. Idk what rate would be adequate, but I would rather have a National sales tax than an income tax. It's fair, everyone pays the same rate. Plus we do need some form of guaranteed income to make sure we do have enough to maintain our armed forces. Most of our police force, roads, courts and such could be paid for by taxes collected by states, counties and cities, but there are some federal agencies (FBI for instance) that needs to stay, and we need to make sure we can pay for them. But we don't need an income tax to fund it.

The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain

At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

You have a good plan, that would make any libertarian proud. There are some problems though, phasing out Social Security and Medicare this way and in so short of a time would probably be impossible.

-----

1. Have a flat 7% personal income tax.2. Have a flat 7% corporate income tax, that is territorial (only taxes earnings made in America).3. Allow workers to divert their portion of the payroll tax into their own personal retirement account; so we can partially privatize Social Security while making the entitlement program solvent.

All while we eliminate the alternative minimum tax, gift taxes, estate taxes; and leave capital gains, dividends, savings and interest all untaxed. So we incentivize savings and investment, which leads to more capital formation and economic growth.

America would have a very competitive economy, with robust economic growth, more upward mobility, as well as a thriving middle class.

Yeah these are deep tax cuts, but we could still balance the budget, while maintaining programs like Medicare and Social Security.

"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan

At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.15%->13%25%-> 20%28%-> 32%33%-> 40%35%-> 45%39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poorer.

When the tide rises all ships rise with it. You want to destroy everything and bring nothing up. You probably would bulldoze every skyscraper just to say you have the biggest building on the block.

At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.15%->13%25%-> 20%28%-> 32%33%-> 40%35%-> 45%39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

You don't make the poor rich by making the rich poorer.

When the tide rises all ships rise with it. You want to destroy everything and bring nothing up. You probably would bulldoze every skyscraper just to say you have the biggest building on the block.

Hmm... disagreed on both ends. Indeed, there are severe income disparities between classes, but they are not due to tax rates (although nuances of taxation do play a role), and altering tax rates (especially to the exaggerated degree that Dan suggested) would not fix the problem even a little bit.

On the other hand, although I'm not entirely for income redistribution (not in the forced and immediate sense, anyway), I do believe that wage inequality is a severe problem that needs reconciliation.

At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Hmmm, I wonder how much people would voluntarily give in taxes. Probably less then we would voluntarily give in charity which is very little.

At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Hmmm, I wonder how much people would voluntarily give in taxes. Probably less then we would voluntarily give in charity which is very little.

I think more people would voluntarily give to charity if they weren't taxed so much :P

The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain

At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.15%->13%25%-> 20%28%-> 32%33%-> 40%35%-> 45%39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

I am not saying that the rich are taking money away from the poor, but ever since Reagan reduced income taxes on the rich and restructured our income tax system, wealth inequality has climbed, income growth for the middle and lower income classes have slowed, and the majority of economic growth has gone to the rich.

At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

(2) Abolish or lease to private firms all government programs except: police, armed-forces, courts, and road infrastructure (for now) over the course of five years in accordance to the declining tax rate.

(3) Sell all surplus equipment owned by the government, and pay back taxed citizens in accordance with how much they were taxed.

(4) During this time, establish some type of voluntary tax contribution program for future funding for the aforementioned programs that won't be abolished.

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be opposed to a modest sales tax either. Idk what rate would be adequate, but I would rather have a National sales tax than an income tax. It's fair, everyone pays the same rate. Plus we do need some form of guaranteed income to make sure we do have enough to maintain our armed forces. Most of our police force, roads, courts and such could be paid for by taxes collected by states, counties and cities, but there are some federal agencies (FBI for instance) that needs to stay, and we need to make sure we can pay for them. But we don't need an income tax to fund it.

The problem here is that the rich are able to save and invest more of their incomes than the poor. So a 10% tax rate on someone earning $15,000 a year may hit someone hard when they spend $14,500 already just trying to get by. However a 10% tax rate on someone earning $400,000 a year might mean a less lavish lifestyle and less money to save, but can easily be adjusted to.

This is the reason for a progressive tax. The poor have less to spare as a percent of their income so they should pay less in taxes.

At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.15%->13%25%-> 20%28%-> 32%33%-> 40%35%-> 45%39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

I am not saying that the rich are taking money away from the poor, but ever since Reagan reduced income taxes on the rich and restructured our income tax system, wealth inequality has climbed, income growth for the middle and lower income classes have slowed, and the majority of economic growth has gone to the rich.

At 4/21/2013 1:34:31 PM, TN05 wrote:I prefer a flat rate tax (probably around 10%) for all income earners.

I will repeat a response I gave earlier to this kind of claim.

The problem here is that the rich are able to save and invest more of their incomes than the poor. So a 10% tax rate on someone earning $15,000 a year may hit someone hard when they spend $14,500 already just trying to get by. However a 10% tax rate on someone earning $400,000 a year might mean a less lavish lifestyle and less money to save, but can easily be adjusted to.

This is the reason for a progressive tax. The poor have less to spare as a percent of their income so they should pay less in taxes.

At 4/21/2013 12:27:15 PM, Dan4reason wrote:Here are the changes I would make:

10% -> 8%.15%->13%25%-> 20%28%-> 32%33%-> 40%35%-> 45%39.6% -> 50%

Due to the increase in income inequality over the past 20 years, with the rich having greatly expanded incomes and the middle class and poor with stagnant incomes, I would raise the taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class and poor.

Income inequality increasing =/= wages of middle class and poor stagnating. THe wages of the rich expanded with a far greater rate than the wages of the poor and middle class, but it is disingenuous to say that their wages were stagnating. Everybody's wages increased; some just increased more than others.

I am not saying that the rich are taking money away from the poor, but ever since Reagan reduced income taxes on the rich and restructured our income tax system, wealth inequality has climbed, income growth for the middle and lower income classes have slowed, and the majority of economic growth has gone to the rich.

At 4/21/2013 12:51:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:(1) Abolish the income tax over the course of five years.

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't be opposed to a modest sales tax either. Idk what rate would be adequate, but I would rather have a National sales tax than an income tax. It's fair, everyone pays the same rate. Plus we do need some form of guaranteed income to make sure we do have enough to maintain our armed forces. Most of our police force, roads, courts and such could be paid for by taxes collected by states, counties and cities, but there are some federal agencies (FBI for instance) that needs to stay, and we need to make sure we can pay for them. But we don't need an income tax to fund it.

The problem here is that the rich are able to save and invest more of their incomes than the poor. So a 10% tax rate on someone earning $15,000 a year may hit someone hard when they spend $14,500 already just trying to get by. However a 10% tax rate on someone earning $400,000 a year might mean a less lavish lifestyle and less money to save, but can easily be adjusted to.

This is the reason for a progressive tax. The poor have less to spare as a percent of their income so they should pay less in taxes.

My response is implying no income tax at all, rather, a National sales tax.

The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain